Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 833 (UTT)

Asheesh Kandpal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-16

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Since these two writ petitions raise common questions of law, I am disposing of the same by common judgment. 2. Petitioner, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1817 of 2016, calls in question the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby allotment of Dravyagun stream has been cancelled with immediate effect by converting it to Rasa Shashta stream. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to allow the petitioner to pursue his studies in M.D. (Ayurveda) Dravyagun stream. Petitioner, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1816 of 2016, challenges the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby allotment of Kayachikitsa stream has been cancelled with immediate effect by converting the same to Dravyagun stream. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to allow the petitioner to pursue his studies in M.D. (Ayurveda) Kayachikitsa stream. 3. Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and also Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate appearing for the Uttarakhand Ayurved University. 4. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1817 of 2016, the case of the petitioner is that Respondent No. 2 conducted UAPGMEE, 2015 for admissions in different streams of M.D./M.S. (Ayurveda) for 33 seats available in Rishikul Campus of Uttarakhand Ayurved University, Haridwar. Petitioner appeared in the said examination and secured in internal category 0010 and he was allotted M.D. (Ayurveda) in Rasa Shashta stream in the first counseling conducted by the respondent no. 2. One student, namely, Dr. Manisha Yadav, who was reshuffled in M.S. (Ayurveda), consequent thereto, one seat in Dravyagun stream felt vacant. Thereafter, petitioner, considering the better prospects in Dravyagun stream, represented before the respondent no. 3 for reshuffling of Dravyagun stream in place of Rasa Shashta stream. On 21.11.2015, after considering the grievance of the petitioner, respondent no. 3 allotted seat of M.D. (Ayurveda) in Dravyagun stream to the petitioner. Petitioner resumed his duties as Scholar in Department of Dravyagun on the vacant seat of M.D. (Ayurveda) in Dravyagun. Petitioner started his studies along with research work in Dravyagun under the Head of the Department of Dravyagun. On 06.06.2016, respondent no. 3 directed the petitioner and similarly situated candidates to report before the respondent no. Petitioner resumed his duties as Scholar in Department of Dravyagun on the vacant seat of M.D. (Ayurveda) in Dravyagun. Petitioner started his studies along with research work in Dravyagun under the Head of the Department of Dravyagun. On 06.06.2016, respondent no. 3 directed the petitioner and similarly situated candidates to report before the respondent no. 2 on 07.06.2016 at 12:00 hrs along with their guardians. On 07.06.2016, petitioner reported before the respondent no. 2 and submitted his undertaking, as desired by the office of respondent no. 2 that he is satisfied with his studies in M.D. (Ayurveda) Dravyagun and wants to continue his studies in M.D. (Ayurveda) Dravyagun only. But, surprisingly, on 25.06.2016, the H.O.D. of Dravyagun Department served the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3, by which allotment of Dravyagun Stream has been cancelled with immediate effect by converting the same to Rasa Shashta stream. Hence, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1817 of 2016 is before this Court. 5. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1816 of 2016, the case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 conducted UAPGMEE, 2015 for admissions in different streams of M.D./M.S. (Ayurveda) for 33 seats available in Rishikul Campus of Uttarakhand Ayurved University, Haridwar. Petitioner appeared in the said examination and secured All India Rank 0045 and he was allotted M.D. (Ayurveda) in Dravyagun stream in the second counseling conducted by respondent no. 2. One student, namely, Dr. Subodh Verma, who was allotted M.D. (Ayurveda) in Kayachiktsa on the occasion of first counseling, left his course immediately after allotment of his seat i.e. M.S. (Ayurveda) in Kayachiktsa. Thereafter, petitioner, considering the better prospects in Kayachikitsa stream, represented before respondent no. 3 for reshuffling of Kayachikitsa stream in place of Dravyagun stream. On 21.11.2015, after considering the grievance of the petitioner, respondent no. 3 allotted seat of M.D. (Ayurveda) in Kayachikitsa stream to the petitioner. Petitioner resumed his duties as Scholar in the Department of Kayachikitsa on the vacant seat of M.D. (Ayurveda) in Kayachikitsa. Petitioner started his studies along with research work in Kayachikitsa under the Head of the Department of Kayachikitsa. On 06.06.2016, respondent no. 3 directed the petitioner and similarly situated candidates to report before respondent no. 2 on 07.06.2016 at 12:00 hrs along with their guardians. On 07.06.2016, petitioner reported before the respondent no. 2 and submitted his undertaking, as desired by the office of respondent no. On 06.06.2016, respondent no. 3 directed the petitioner and similarly situated candidates to report before respondent no. 2 on 07.06.2016 at 12:00 hrs along with their guardians. On 07.06.2016, petitioner reported before the respondent no. 2 and submitted his undertaking, as desired by the office of respondent no. 2 that he is satisfied with his studies in M.D. (Ayurveda) Kayachikitsa and wants to continue his studies in M.D. (Ayurveda) Kayachikitsa. But, surprisingly, on 27.06.2016, the H.O.D. of Kayachikitsa Department served the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3, by which allotment of Kayachikitsa stream has been cancelled with immediate effect by converting the same to Dravyagun Stream. Hence, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1816 of 2016 is before this Court. 6. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the parties made statement at the bar that the facts of the present case are identical to the Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1815 of 2016, Dr. Manisha Yadav vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 18.10.2016 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1815 of 2016. They prayed that this petition may also be disposed of in terms of the directions passed by this Court in the aforesaid matter. 7. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions passed by this Court in the aforesaid matter. 8. Stay applications also stand disposed of.